RE: Current Developments

( Victoria.Lusk@dora.state.co.us )
Fri, 6 Mar 1998 08:28:22 -0700

I agree that it certainly appears that we just need to read the three
additional current events items. However, my recollection of the last
few exams is that there were several questions on current events - two
of which addressed events I didn't even suspect had occurred (and I
really did read a number of the National underwriters and so forth) -
but nothing on current events (such as social security last year Part 8)
that I figured were a cinch to be tested. So I am very relieved to have
the topics more defined!

Good luck to everyone. I won't be at the rate seminar, but may be at
San Marco in May

Victoria Lusk

>----------
>From: dperry@UNIGARD.COM[SMTP:dperry@UNIGARD.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, March 05, 1998 6:53 PM
>To: studygroup8@lists.casact.org
>Subject: FW: Current Developments
>
>In response to the note below, since they no longer say in the syllabus that
>one needs to read every issue of these publications, I believe we are safe
>just reading the information they have now provided. If anyone has a good
>reason to think otherwise, please let me know.
>
>In my past recollection with the exam, I did not recall them putting very
>many points on the exam for current events. I would say five points per year
>at the most, sometimes less. However, that is just a rough guess, since the
>study manuals do not include past current event questions, in general.
>
>On another subject, are any of you attending the Ratemaking Seminar next
>week. I am planning to attend myself, and I would like the opportunity to
>meet you if you are going to be there.
>
>That is all for now. Good luck with the studies.
> ----------
>From: Seth.Ruff@us.coopers.com
>To: studygroup8@lists.casact.org; Dan Perry
>Subject: Current Developments
>Date: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 10:24AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>For the Current Developments section, the '98 syllabus seems to indicate
>that we need to read only the three source readings. In past syllabi (I,
>too, hate people who say "syllabi"), a lengthy blurb was included saying
>that candidates had to read every Nat'l Underwriter or Best's Review or
>Smart's Bulletin ever written, or some such thing. That blurb was removed
>this year. So, should we be comfortable reading ONLY the three source
>readings? Does anyone have any info about this change?
>
>Returning to GAMBARDJI's question, any insight into how hard they test the
>current events? And to dperry, I would love a copy of the point
>breakdown, if you indeed create one. Yes, I'm very lazy.
>
>Thanks and good luck to all,
>
>Seth Ruff
>
>
>